THE MAJORITY of blind or visually impaired students sitting the Leaving Certificate this year did not have access to key textbooks, according to a report due to be published later this week.
The study, commissioned by the Association for Higher Education Access and Disability (Ahead), reveals that blind and visually impaired students are three times less likely to go on to third-level education than their non-disabled peers and experience significant disadvantage in the classroom.
Just one-quarter (26 per cent) of school leavers with sensory impairment (sight or hearing difficulties) progress to higher education, less than half the national rate of 55 per cent, according to the most recent census figures.
However, recent Higher Education Authority (HEA) research indicates that for visually impaired students this figure is much higher with only 17 per cent going on to third level.
Despite a 14 per cent rise in the numbers of disabled students progressing to higher education between 2003 and 2005, the number of students with sight difficulties going to third level has decreased by 2.7 per cent, according to the report.
This “serious under-representation” of people with visual disabilities at third level is the result of a “highly inadequate” second-level education system, according to Ann Heelan, director of Ahead.
The “monumental decision” to move children with sight difficulties to mainstream schools in the past five years has been good for children’s social development, but inadequate resources, an absence of teacher training and the lack of proper planning means that they are “missing out on opportunities”, Ms Heelan said.
Visually disabled children are “expected to somehow just fit in with an education system based on text and visual communication – chalk and talk,” she explained.
The report highlights a number of “significant barriers” which second-level students with sight difficulties face.
These include an education system that does not take into account the diverse learning needs of blind or visually impaired children, insufficient provision of alternative learning materials and an education culture that regards equipment and Braille as “add ons”.
In particular, the report highlights the inadequate provision of Braille, electronic or large print textbooks for blind and visually impaired students. Ms Heelan said that almost all students sitting State exams this year would have experienced difficulty accessing textbooks in alternative formats.
The National Braille Production Centre does not have the capacity to keep up with demand and often students are given half or quarter of a textbook, “undermining their capacity to develop independent learning and study skills”, according to the report.
Funding for the provision of electronic textbooks is virtually non-existent, she added.
The authors also criticise the lack of teaching staff trained in Braille and relevant assistive technology.
Drawing attention to the common misconception “that new technology will replace Braille”, the authors state that learning Braille, is “essential for the acquisition of literacy skills, cognitive development and the development of an independent learning capacity”.
Currently, the teaching of Braille is given a “low priority” and is “ad hoc, unstructured and dependent on the skills of the visiting teacher”.
Similarly, despite advances in computer technology, access to assistive technology on the ground is limited and children often end up struggling to come to grips with it on entry to third level.
Given that the numbers of students affected is relatively low – there are about 300 secondary students with sight difficulties – these barriers, which hinder education progress and career development, “are unacceptable”, according to Ms Heelan.